Of course, maps like that only serve to push the red-meat red-staters deeper into McCain’s pocket. After all, if the commies and muslims and atheists of the rest of the world don’t like him, it’s ’cause they fear him. And Obama must just be a puppet in their plan to put the UN in charge of the world.

Then again, once Johnny really f***s things up, at least I know there are LOTS of places I can move.

“Then again, once Johnny really f***s things up, at least I know there are LOTS of places I can move.”

I was talking with a neocon friend of mine a little back and he made a crack about people moving to Canada in protest. At which point, I suggested, you know, if a government pushes policies I like and offers me what I feel to be equal and desired returns on the tax dollars I pay, why wouldn’t I want to live there? Why would it be an inherently silly thing for me to move there?

We concluded that the greatest benefit a PhD confers you is the ability to shop around for countries.

However, my friend continues to be offended that whenever he whines about his retirement savings are being decimated by the failing dollar, I point out that he’s still young enough to restart his career in Europe.

I’m not quite sure how that picture is a good response for people telling you that your previous post was “too biased for the Democrats.” So according to you nearly the whole world supports Obama, but that’s not an response to those complaints, that’s an opinion with no real relevance to the arguments made against you. I love this blog for its brilliant comic and entertainment commentary, but posts like this are off putting to a moderate like myself. Smug superiority over those who disagree with you doesn’t make you clever, it just makes you seem like you’re kind of an ass (even if you aren’t).

MGK: I don’t expect that you should be neutral, I’ve been reading this blog long enough to know that. I was just saying that posts like this one are off putting to me. Even though I often find myself disagreeing with what you say, at the very least your posts are almost always clever and well written. Hell, even though I thought that the magic cards were clearly biased, they were still clever. This post just didn’t have that cleverness in my opinion, it was just a middle finger to those who disagree with you.

Partisan politics are not for everybody, and when you do through a decade of candidates spouting the same taupe-moderate message in order to remain as inoffensive as possible, it is quite easy to not give a fuck which rich old white guy is which.

If you really -really- beleived in john Kerry in the last election, then I would suggest that you would rally behind a damp sponge, so long as the Democratic party backed it. If your message was “anyone but Bush”, understand that, for alot of people, putting the biggest fund raising whore in the Democratic party up to the plate was not exactly putting the nest foot forward.

When presented with shit on one side and shit on the other, you are not morally or mentally questionable for not having a clear vision of which shit is obviously the shittier of the two shits. You just kind of sigh heavily and move on.

This election, however, you have a guy who used to stand up for himself bending over for the fundie element of the GOP in order to appease the party base. On the other side, you have someone with little experience, but who hands out a line about changing the game that he actually seems to live up to (steering clear of the negative adds, for example), and whose policy stances lie a little closer to mine. In this race, for once, I am decided, but my stance in the past, I like to think, was not due to reduced brainpower.

Blue: I can see it that way. I guess that I might have taken the post a bit too seriously. When you get close to the edges of the political spectrum its hard to see where opinion ends and parody begins.

Lunchbox: In a way. As much to make a point as to confound the people who want neutrality from an internet blog about comic books and television.

I’m not sure I’d use the term ‘offensive’, though. I think you’d have to be a very special kind of dumbass to actually be offended by individual bias. Frustrated, sure, but the point in the end is that there is absolutely no reason for him to be unbias. He is not a news anchor. He’s a guy on the internet. Guys on the internet have opinions, and it’s plain goofy to expect them to act otherwise.

Mind you, at this point, I’m completely talking out of my ass, as I am not privy to the secret heart of MGK.

Not that it’s any of my business, but this line of complaint really puzzles me. It’s like some people wandered into Mr. Bird’s house, plopped down on his couch, ate his chips and salsa, and then started berating him for not having any cheese dip. It’s plain strange behavior.

Being as it is MGK’s blog, whatever the hell he wants to put up here is his own right. You’re going to complain about his political biases *now*? Over fake M:TG cards? You’re feeling condescended to because there’s not a full and clear representation in his *collectible card game parodies*?

Unless the only bits you read are the geek/nerd stuff, and you’re offended by having your political values not clearly met in a post about politics, in whatever form it’s rendered, it seems clear you don’t read the site at all.

And, ‘they’re all the same’? Still? Really? The lesser of two evils. Let me show you them.

Maybe, but isn’t part of the point that the entire rest of the world is watching the US right now and hoping we don’t fuck it up because we totally have the past eight years?

I mean, don’t get me wrong; I sort of get moderate. I’m moderate, to some extent. Centrist in many ways.

But then there’s this election, and it’s kind of like ‘moderate’ is way over on the right side of things while rational, intelligent people who believe in things like women’s rights and, you know, evolution are kind of looking at everyone else and thinking “Thinking: You’re doing it wrong.”

Broadly true although I did read that McCain has strong support in China and that George W’s approval rating tops 80% in parts of Africa the other day. Apparently “George W. Bush” is a very popular choice of name over there.

as for your map, America clearly won’t be swayed by what the rest of the world wants.

Except that MGK lives in “the rest of the world”, so it’s a little unrealistic to expect him to say good things about this version of John McCain.

I’m for Obama, but the whole “anybody not for Obama is a moron” bit is getting old.

You’re right, that’s not an accurate statement. You can think Obama isn’t the right guy and not be a moron. I’ts thinking that MCCAIN is the right guy that pushes you into moronocity. 😉

(Since the Palin pick, more women are planning to vote for McCain. Just because she’s a woman, and they’re women too, and back when McCain didn’t have a woman on the ticket they didn’t want to vote for him. So yes, I’d call people like that pretty fuckin’ retarded.)

This post just didn’t have that cleverness in my opinion, it was just a middle finger to those who disagree with you.

Oh DUDE, if you think that THIS is rude then you’d better give thanks that you’ve never been on the receiving end of a similar middle finger by an annoyed Peter David. The guy’s a great writer and I love him, but you wouldn’t like him when he’s angry. 😛

Don’t you have your own election to worry about? You might have some valuable insights there.

Yeah, I live in Canada too and I too am worrying more about the U.S. election than the Canadian one.

That’s because whether or not the Conservative Party here in Canada gains a few seats in Parliament is going to have a negligible effect on me and the country. Even if the Conservatives gain a ton of seats, that’ll still only affect me.

The U.S. election? That affects the WHOLE WORLD, what with you guys being one of the few remaining superpowers and all. Plus, Stephen Harper ain’t gonna start any wars. John McCain might do just that.

And, ‘they’re all the same’? Still? Really? The lesser of two evils. Let me show you them.

You know, I’d be lying if I said I thought Obama was gonna do everything right. Examples of him doing the wrong thing include him joining the rest of the Democrats in acquiescing to Bush and voting to give him all the money he wanted for the Iraq War, voting the wrong way on FISA, saying that convicted child molesters deserved to be executed (even though “convicted” does not always necessarily mean “guilty”), saying that Israel was justified in attacking Lebanon, supporting any amount of offshore drilling at all, and more stuff that doesn’t immediately spring to mind.

So no, I’m not convinced that Obama isn’t the “lesser of two evils.”

What I do believe is that John McCain is a whole lot worse. McCain’s hawkishness, McCain voting against a ban on waterboarding when he claims to be against torture, and the way McCain has gone negative against Obama make me certain of this. Re. the last point, if anybody has something to say about Obama running negative campaign ads too, here’s my response: “McCain started this, and he’s just fighting back.”

If you think neither guy is any good? Either don’t vote, or write in somebody else’s name on your ballot.

Considering that every ten years or so we bail out most of those pro-Obama countries (either financially or militarily) is reason enough to ignore their ‘wisdom’.

Yeah James, you’re absolutely right. If a country doesn’t have a strong army, or it’s poor, it logically follows that nobody in that country has any brains.

Considering that every ten years or so we bail out most of those pro-Obama countries (either financially or militarily) is reason enough to ignore their ‘wisdom’.

What? Jesus get real dude.

The US is the world’s major superpower. Full stop. What happens there, good or bad affects international affairs large and small. The rest of the worlds opinon is a valid opinion on who runs it. Maybe the US should, for once, consider the idea

@James: Australia would like to thank you for what (little) you did for us during World War II. However, we repaid the debt a hundred times over in Viet Nam, and now any comment you make about America saving the rest of the world regularly is so fracking offensive that you need to APOLOGISE. NOW.

When you get close to the edges of the political spectrum its hard to see where opinion ends and parody begins.

I don’t see any “edges of the spectrum” in this discussion. You appear to be an American conservative who tells people he’s (making a gender assumption here, apologies in advance if I’m wrong) a “moderate,” and you’re reading a blog with a clearly visible liberal/progressive (to you use the American parlance, not sure what a Canadian would call it) bent.

If you want edges of the spectrum watch me, an anarcho-socialist, get into an argument with one of the war-mongering theocrats I work with.

I’m a conservative, fairly moderate, I imagine, but still well to the right of center. Having said that, anyone complaining about MGK not being balanced needs to shut the fuck up.

Seriously.

He’s a Canadian law student. You don’t get more liberal than that. It just doesn’t happen.

Ok, maybe in Massachusetts. Regardless, if you’ve read this blog more than twice, it should come as no surprise that MGK is not going to be fair or balanced in his parodies. Deal with it.

I live in Seattle, green/hippie/liberal mecca of the northwest, and I can’t even listen to the local rock stations right now without the fucking DJs trying to make political jokes at McCain and Palin’s expense. It’s fucking annoying. I don’t give a shit what some switchboard biscuit is voting, I just want to hear some tunes while I’m sitting in my car on I-5. You know what I do? I change the fucking station. Or put on my ipod.

If things annoy you that are otherwise entertaining, just don’t read them. If you don’t like biased political humor, don’t read political humor by a blatant liberal, or a blatant conservative for that matter. If you have a sense of humor enough that people don’t need to agree with you to be funny, then have fun. Generally, I skim when ever MGK gets political, and hope that tomorrow he’ll make a Dr. Doom joke to fix the curve back to normal.

In spite of what your overdeveloped sense of entitlement tells you, you have no right to dictate what MGK can write, or do on his site. You can bitch if you want, but know that it’s dumb. Your only real course of action is to stop coming back, if it bothers you that much. MGK almost certainly won’t care if you stop coming back. It’s not like he’s running this on ad revenue.

So my $.02? I hope McCain wins. Simply because I think that he’s the right man to get us out of the war, and be the leader we need in a rocky time. I don’t like Obama’s economic voting record, he’s just too liberal for me. Is McCain the best possible man to be president? Hell no, but he’s better than who’s there now, and I trust him to make better choices in the future. But you know what, even if Obama wins, America will be fine. More than I believe in conservative ideas, I believe in this country. We have a good system, it works and G. W. B. has shown us that even the worst of presidents can’t ruin it.

That’s all I have to say, so feel free to demonize me for being not liberal and having a different viewpoint. As such I’m clearly uneducated, racist, of a sup-par intellect and a product of spurious breeding. That should cover the basics for you, so you might have to be slightly more creative now.

He’s a Canadian law student. You don’t get more liberal than that. It just doesn’t happen.

Actually, you’d be surprised to find out how many Canadian law students are Tories. It’s worth remembering that a lot of people go to law school in Canada strictly for corporate law; I’m more interested in criminal and social justice law (much to the despair of my father), so I’m actually a lot further left than average.

Of course, my classmates will tell you that I can expound – at length – on the failures of liberalism as well, most notably its all-too-frequent operating assumption that people are good and will de facto act in their own self-interest.

Of course, my classmates will tell you that I can expound – at length – on the failures of liberalism as well, most notably its all-too-frequent operating assumption that people are good and will de facto act in their own self-interest.
That sounds more like libertarianism than liberalism to me.

“When presented with shit on one side and shit on the other, you are not morally or mentally questionable for not having a clear vision of which shit is obviously the shittier of the two shits. You just kind of sigh heavily and move on.”
If you thinking makes your tummy hurt, then maybe. But for people who are of the opinion that a fundamentalist christian who could barely get a bachelors in journalism and believes that homosexuals shouldn’t have the right to visit their dying partners (it’s part of the marriage benefits she fought TIRELESSLY against), and believe that RAPE victims should have to PAY for their rape kits is worse than a senator with “questionable experience” (copyright, FoxNews) of the party that hasn’t had the opportunity to screw us up, it’s no longer a question of left or right, it’s a question of do I see the horror that’s rapidly approaching or not.

“Don’t you have your own election to worry about? You might have some valuable insights there.”
Considering how destructive an administration would be if Palin is elected – vice (until he dies of ancient-ness) – president, I’m pretty sure everyone should be worried if the “maverick reformer” wins.

“Considering that every ten years or so we bail out most of those pro-Obama countries (either financially or militarily) is reason enough to ignore their ‘wisdom’.”

(narrates) And here we see textbook Bush-rhetoric – look at the form, the technique, you just don’t see that kind of non-thinking isolationism anymore. While some rally behind a lie filled campaign for a farce of a candidate, still this man diligently practices and preserves his art of inarticulate, scattershot attack. Truly one of nature’s marvels. (roll credits, accept palm d’or)

I don’t know about the other posters here, but nothing persuades me more that the anti-intellectual, might-makes-right bully mentality that has pervaded the states for the past 8 years. Way to advance the notion that americans think with their adrenal glands.

…believes that homosexuals shouldn’t have the right to visit their dying partners (it’s part of the marriage benefits she fought TIRELESSLY against)…

Can you give me the source on that, Fantomex? I want to share it with somebody who had been a Hillary supporter and now plans to vote for McCain/Palin. This person is gay and has stated that Palin has done more for the LGBT community than Obama ever did. That didn’t sound right to me, and now I know it isn’t.

That’s all I have to say, so feel free to demonize me for being not liberal and having a different viewpoint. As such I’m clearly uneducated, racist, of a sup-par intellect and a product of spurious breeding. That should cover the basics for you, so you might have to be slightly more creative now.

I’m not going to do that, but much as I’m glad you stuck up for Bird when there are so many things you disagree with him on (which I think is admirable since not everybody would be willing to do it) I believe you’re making the wrong decision and I’ll tell you why after I quote another part of your comment…

We have a good system, it works and G. W. B. has shown us that even the worst of presidents can’t ruin it.

I think GWB has done a lot to make things worse. Raising the national debt could still come back to bite the country in the ass. Plus, things have changed under Bush. Torture is now more legal than it used to be, the government has more leeway when it comes to warrantless wiretapping, etc.

You think that it doesn’t matter who’s President, that even the worst guy can’t ruin things. I think that the wrong President can either ruin things or do an assload of damage.

It shouldn’t be a question of whether or not the country still exists after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, it shouldn’t be a question of whether or not the country has been utterly destroyed under Bush/Cheney. It should be this question: “are things better…or worse?” And this question: “will McCain likely make things better…or worse?”

Now you believe that McCain will end the war, but he hasn’t shown much interest in ending it that I’ve seen. He has also indicated that he would be willing to start another war if he thought it was the right thing to do.

McCain was also opposed to the new G.I. Bill because he preferred the troops stay in the military for a long time instead of serving their tours, coming home, and getting rewarded for their service with a college education.

But forget policy and positions for a minute. I have always disagreed with McCain on Iraq, but when he spoke at the 2004 RNC and talked about how invading Iraq was the right thing to do I could still respect the man. Even though he was trying to help Bush get reelected. Even though he was saying that invading a country without provocation had been the right thing to do, when I believe that it is always wrong. Why? Because back then he really DID seem to have a conscience, back then he really DID seem to be above Karl Rove’s tactics.

As MGK has pointed out, Americans don’t like to vote for jerks. As I am pointing out now, John McCain has become a jerk.

You can’t deny that he is all about the smears and attacks these days.

That bothers me a lot, possibly more than it bothers the average person, and here’s why. When McCain makes fun of Obama, or when Palin does, or when Giuliani does, or when Thompson does, it reminds me of people who used to make fun of me when I was a kid. I fucking hated those people, and I hate John McCain and his friends today for the same reasons. It’s one thing to compete against somebody, and it’s another thing to treat them with utter disrespect and contempt. Having been on the receiving end of that kind of treatment so often in the past, I have little tolerance for it today.

I cannot speak for Mr. Bird and if I’m wrong I’m sure he’ll correct me, but based on this previous post of his it wouldn’t surprise me if he went through more or less the same thing and felt the same way for the same reasons.

But you don’t need to be bullied in order to hate bullies. Most of us agree that bullies are assholes (bullies might not think so, but their opinions don’t matter) and we don’t want them to get away with being assholes.

So aside from agreeing with Obama politically, I want to see him beat John McCain this year for the same reason that everybody wanted to see Peter Parker kick the shit out of Flash Thompson back in the day. If Obama wins, I’m going to feel just as good about it as Spidey fans did after they read the issue when Peter stepped into the ring with Flash and knocked the bastard out cold, and I’ll feel that way for the same reasons.

“Can you give me the source on that, Fantomex? I want to share it with somebody who had been a Hillary supporter and now plans to vote for McCain/Palin. This person is gay and has stated that Palin has done more for the LGBT community than Obama ever did. That didn’t sound right to me, and now I know it isn’t.”

No problem, here’s a couple of links that might help (hopefully MGK doesn’t mind if i post links):
i was wrong about one thing; the visitation right is actually part of the standard spousal benefits that married couples get (she wants gays to have NONE of these), not the health benefits (i *think* they are separate things, so while she still vehemently opposed it, the manner in which i presented the information was unintentionally inaccurate, i apologize.

http://ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm#Civil_Rights
Palin’s views on the topic are, frankly, disgusting and backwards. The only *possible* point in favor of her NOT being a bigot is that she complied -while verbally noting that it was against her will- with a ruling by Alaska’s Supreme Court to offer benefits (http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/8508726p-8401181c.html). I think that it would’ve been a crime if she hadn’t complied with a Supreme Court ruling (i am by no means certain) so the fact that she ‘made’ a hobson’s choice isn’t exactly something worthy of applause.

http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Civil_Rights
the only thing i can think of that might lead your friend to believe that (other than maybe watching fox news; seriously, that stuff is mind poison) is that obama IS technically against gay “marriage”, but this seems to be in name only as he is FOR (unlike Palin) civil unions and marriage benefits for homosexual couples. so his opposition to gay “marriage” (and this is just my interpretation) seems to be only a political choice wording of his position that doesn’t in actuality differ from being pro-gay marriage THAT much so as not to alienate the 55% (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm) of americans that are against gay marriage while in actuality not giving any ground on the issue.

A lot of people of faith consider the concept of marriage to be something sacred. It’s not uncommon at all for more tolerant people of faith to support Gay rights for the legal rights associated with marriage (joint filing of taxes, fiscal unity under the law, next of kin rights, etc), who don’t feel it’s quite kosher to use the same term which to many, many people carries a sense of holiness.

Should we legislate against Gay civil unions based on the christian morality that being Gay is a sin? Certainly not. I would not want to live in a theocratic nation. But should we federally endorse said unions with a term that for many is inequitable with the usage? That’s a much trickier question. It’s really a case of semantics, but in the image is everything time of elections, that’s all that keeps Jesus Christ from being a swear word when some people say it.

Also, Rob Brown, thank you. You are the kind of liberal I like and can happily agree to disagree with.

But should we federally endorse said unions with a term that for many is inequitable with the usage? That’s a much trickier question.

No, it isn’t (outside of a strategic context). In a moral sense, calling it anything but marriage is enforcing a separate-but-equal doctrine, which may be easier to implement but on a moral level is profoundly insulting. (“Gays can’t get married. That’s for straight people. Gays can get civilly unioned.”) Given the level of disassociation and ostricization that many gay people have to accept simply to live their lives and how that alienation in turn affects their mental health, endorsing it with the language of the state is simply mendacious.

Exar,
MGK articulated the point better than I can, but I think it says quite a lot about what you are trying to say that you use the phrase “people of faith”, which gives the illusion of both a). including a large variety of religious views – and having lived in both a ‘red’ and a ‘blue’ state, i can attest that the only variety is shades of christian , b). the intolerant and backwards thinking beliefs that they (I refer to the homophobes) have is the result of a legitimate cognitive process.

It is clearly neither. I am not an expert on comparative religion, but to my limited understanding many, if not most, non-abrahamaic religions do NOT have unquestionable divine edicts in regard to who a person is *allowed* to love. So if the people of america truly were a varied and open-to-dialogue “people of faith” – and not what they are, a homogenous and *largely* intolerant (i cite the aforementioned 55% anti-gay marriage poll).

As for the second and more insidious implication; There is simply NO ethical basis for denying a person legal (and that is what is at stake here, not avoiding the endless after death torture of a kind and loving yahweh) benefits on the basis of their sexual orientation. None. This is not a simplification of a complex and nuanced moral issue, this is a removal of the smokescreen that the “people of faith” (read: christians) throw up in discussion whenever it becomes obvious that they lack a leg to stand on.

As for the ‘holiness’ of marriage; clearly when a union (aren’t there words to the approximate tune of ‘god has made one’ in the vows?) fails AT ALL, much less so much of the time, we are not talking about something holy. When a sizable percentage of women are abused by their husbands (apparently yahweh doesn’t care when you break a promise to him when it involves hurting women), we are not talking about something holy. But I guess the fact that the work of an ‘omnipotent’ being is routinely undone by mortals doesn’t seem to bother “people of faith”.

“…that’s all that keeps Jesus Christ from being a swear word when some people say it. ”
Silly me, I thought that opposing thinly-veiled intolerance was more important than jesus’s self-esteem. I completely retract my point.

Also, Rob Brown, thank you. You are the kind of liberal I like and can happily agree to disagree with.

Thank you. ^_^

I also got something wrong in my reply to your comment: Peter didn’t knock Flash out cold, he knocked him out of the ring.

But should we federally endorse said unions with a term that for many is inequitable with the usage? That’s a much trickier question.

I was going to point out that marriage isn’t an exclusively Christian ritual before I saw that Gauldar already said so.

If marriage had been invented by Christians, then it would make sense for them to say “Excuse us, could you stop calling your union ‘marriage’ please? ‘Marriage’ is our thing.” Since it wasn’t invented by Christians, however, it appears to make little sense for Christians to have the final say on what marriage is and what it isn’t.

Civil unions would be better than nothing, of course. But marriage would be better than civil unions.

The only *possible* point in favor of her NOT being a bigot is that she complied -while verbally noting that it was against her will- with a ruling by Alaska’s Supreme Court to offer benefits (http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/8508726p-8401181c.html). I think that it would’ve been a crime if she hadn’t complied with a Supreme Court ruling (i am by no means certain) so the fact that she ‘made’ a hobson’s choice isn’t exactly something worthy of applause.

Yeah, that’s what the person I told you about thinks. Here’s a direct quote from his blog:

“…And Palin has done more for same-sex couples as the Governor of ALASKA than Obama had as someone representing CHICAGO. The gay epicenter of the Midwest. Heck, he wouldn’t even march in our Gay Pride parade this year.”

He goes on to say that HILLARY marched in parades, which apparently makes all the difference. And oh yeah, he reminds that Palin has gay friends. *shakes head*

I don’t get why people of faith would need the government’s endorsement to feel secure in the sanctity of their marriages. Isn’t the whole point of faith that it comes from within? That it’s between you and your God, and possibly a church of some type? How does the state act as an intermediary there? Whatever happened to “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”? If a government-approved marriage equates a sacred marriage, then why not get married at the registrar’s office and skip the service? It’d cost a lot less. Ironically, various Christian clergymen have been officiating gay unions since the 80s.

Exar, the problem with that argument is that until it became legally untenable, Palin opposed precisely those “legal rights associated with marriage” that you cite. She was against extending benefits to domestic partnerships, not against gay marriage itself.

I personally think MGK’s argument is correct. It’s also worth noting that offering “civil unions” as a substitute creates a sub-marriage structure that I doubt could legally be denied straight couples, thus genuinely weakening the legal position of marriage in a way that simply extending marriage to gay couples doesn’t.

Standing in the middle of the US Republicans and Democrats is not being a “moderate”, it’s being a right-wing nut. United States has two right-wing parties, one of them slightly less crazy than the other.

Oh, and to jump from that subject to another one entirely, the thing with gay marriage is that marriage isn’t merely a sentimental thing. A married couple is, from the society’s perspective, an abstract unit that produces new citizens, a baby machine if you will. Until gays get artificial semination/womb-renting rights, ie. the ability to legally produce new citizens, they’re never going to be _really_ married as far as the society’s structure is considered, and if they’re not, calling them “married” just causes confusion. Things should be called by their right name.

A married couple is, from the society’s perspective, an abstract unit that produces new citizens, a baby machine if you will.
I don’t think you live in the same society the rest of us do. See, in my society, there are laws allowing certain couples to marry only on the condition that they are incapable of having children. Arizona & Illinois (and I believe others, but haven’t looked up their laws) allow first cousins to marry only if they are too old to have children or at least one of them is otherwise incapable of having kids.

Besides which, gay couples already have children. Preventing them from marrying is not going to stop them from having kids, either.

“Oh, and to jump from that subject to another one entirely, the thing with gay marriage is that marriage isn’t merely a sentimental thing.”
Right, it’s an agreement that two people enter into that has substantial legal benefits. Denying such benefits on the basis of sexual orientation is bigotry. And I don’t think “sentimental” means what you think it means.

“A married couple is, from the society’s perspective, an abstract unit that produces new citizens”
Couple things;
1) “society” doesn’t have a perspective, the majority of people do, there’s a difference. the word society in that sentence has implications that don’t square with reality.
2)putting the word abstract in your argument doesn’t add to the validity of what you are saying. putting it next to the word “unit” dramatically takes away from it

“, a baby machine if you will. Until gays get artificial semination/womb-renting rights, ie. the ability to legally produce new citizens, they’re never going to be _really_ married as far as the society’s structure is considered…”
Really? “society’s structure”? Is there any word you won’t give a “perspective”? Way to cloud the argument.

“Things should be called by their right name.”
Things should. Like bigotry for totally-random example.

“Right, [marriage]’s an agreement that two people enter into that has substantial legal benefits. Denying such benefits on the basis of sexual orientation is bigotry.”

Yes. Denying them on the basis that there’s no basis for them, on the other hand, is just rational. People simply liking each other very much, living together and having sex together should not be cause for any kind of benefits. Those things are incidental and have no value to the society.

The bottom line of the matter is that a family only has value to the society as a child-rearing unit. The fact that some families fail to fulfill that purpose is no reason to do things that would lead to even more families failing to fulfill that purpose. Until a gay couple can function as a child-rearing unit, it shouldn’t be given the benefits that belong to a child-rearing unit.

I should clarify that when I say society, I don’t mean any of the people that live in it, I mean the nation itself as an entirely abstract power structure of who has what rights and what duties, interacts with whom in what way and so on. All changes in the laws of the society must be of such nature that they optimize that structure, as that will make things work smoothly in it.

Come to think of it, it would be good to deny marriage benefits even to heterosexual couples until the birth of their first child (or at least until the fetus has grown past the abortion limit), to drive home the point.

This usage of the word “society” that you have an alarming tendency for does not appear to have any correspondence towards how people actually use it (i.e., the definition). It occurs throughout, so I mention it before addressing the specifics.

“Yes. Denying them on the basis that there’s no basis for them, on the other hand, is just rational.”

That sentence. Restated: ‘I agree that it’s bigotry to deny people LEGAL benefits on the basis of sexual orientation, but it’s just rational to deny people LEGAL benefits if they do not reproduce.’

Of course there’s also the fact that your comment creates an infinite regression when examined;
basis = there is no basis

so,

basis = there is no (there is no (there is no (there is no(…))))

That is an untenable and borderline malevolent idea. You have just moved the bigotry from being directed towards homosexuals to being directed towards homosexuals AND heterosexuals who lack the ability to reproduce AND heterosexuals that lack the desire to reproduce.

“People simply liking each other very much, living together and having sex together should not be cause for any kind of benefits. Those things are incidental and have no value to the society.”

“simply liking”? You really just said that and attempted to pass it off as part of an informed discussion? In your head that made have sounded impressively detached and focused on the bigger picture, but in actuality it doesn’t really convey anything other than an offhand and childish rejection of one of the most powerful manifestations of the qualities that compose a decent human being.

As should not be surprising, you are visibly unaware of the well known fact that there is a documented link between physical health and strong relationships. Perhaps in your nightmarishly orwellian ideal of “society”, the physical health of people is also “incidental. That aside, what you say is a disgusting trivialization of love, in ANY form.

“Come to think of it, it would be good to deny marriage benefits even to heterosexual couples until the birth of their first child (or at least until the fetus has grown past the abortion limit), to drive home the point.”

The point being what exactly? That the fear of “society’s” increasing indifference towards the individual has been realized worse than we would have thought possible?

“I should clarify that when I say society, I don’t mean any of the people that live in it, I mean the nation itself as an entirely abstract power structure of who has what rights and what duties, interacts with whom in what way and so on. All changes in the laws of the society must be of such nature that they optimize that structure, as that will make things work smoothly in it.”

Seriously, stop saying abstract, it’s a contradiction (you are using the word as an adjective, none of the definitions apply to something as specific as what you are referring to. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstract) and meaningless and only gives the appearance that you are trying to pad your comments with a word that you think will be vague enough to add legitimacy to a ridiculous idea.

What you propose is disgusting. I’m surprised that anyone who reads this blog would advocate an idea that reeks of social darwinism and sounds so ominously like the prelude to a government enforced mandatory eugenics program. A society (i use the word in this case, correctly, as you seem to lack the ability to do so and need a demonstration) that enforces a view such as the one you advocate cannot be argued for and should never be sought.

I notice that acabaca is still not recognizing the fact that gay couples do have children, so even with the stupid imposition that only couples with children can marry, forbidding gay marriage still makes no sense.